Comics UK

swirlythingy wrote:I formed an on-the-spot opinion.
I'm no expert in these matters.

Quoted for truth.

Oh, but your posting record is so much more fascinating.

Can anyone say, "TROLL"?

Judging by the banner there, I agree, Swirly. How immature.

It was a little bit rude but not that bad.

Scoobie has been warned about the offensive banner and I have removed the post.

Al.

steelclaw wrote:Is it still school holidays? his been a member for 2 years so he must be about 7 years old by now.

Oh, dear, I do hope Al doesn't ban him, then. We need him to offer the only truly valid opinions on how the Beano is uncompromisingly the best comic that ever was, is or will be.

swirlythingy wrote:

steelclaw wrote:Is it still school holidays? his been a member for 2 years so he must be about 7 years old by now.

Oh, dear, I do hope Al doesn't ban him, then. We need him to offer the only truly valid opinions on how the Beano is uncompromisingly the best comic that ever was, is or will be.

Do you ever buy any comics that you do like?

Dammit----I missed the 'offensive banner!'

swirlythingy wrote:

steelclaw wrote:Is it still school holidays? his been a member for 2 years so he must be about 7 years old by now.

Oh, dear, I do hope Al doesn't ban him, then. We need him to offer the only truly valid opinions on how the Beano is uncompromisingly the best comic that ever was, is or will be.

I don't understand this post. Scoobie doesn't say anything like that in his posts, even the one that was deleted. What am I missing?

RamblingSid wrote:

swirlythingy wrote:

steelclaw wrote:Is it still school holidays? his been a member for 2 years so he must be about 7 years old by now.

Oh, dear, I do hope Al doesn't ban him, then. We need him to offer the only truly valid opinions on how the Beano is uncompromisingly the best comic that ever was, is or will be.

I don't understand this post. Scoobie doesn't say anything like that in his posts, even the one that was deleted. What am I missing?

I think your find he was being sarcastic.

Lew Stringer wrote:

swirlythingy wrote:Oh, dear, I do hope Al doesn't ban him, then. We need him to offer the only truly valid opinions on how the Beano is uncompromisingly the best comic that ever was, is or will be.

Do you ever buy any comics that you do like?

I prefer the Beano to the attitude of certain members on this forum (which I thought I'd made more obvious).

swirlythingy wrote:

Lew Stringer wrote:

swirlythingy wrote:Oh, dear, I do hope Al doesn't ban him, then. We need him to offer the only truly valid opinions on how the Beano is uncompromisingly the best comic that ever was, is or will be.

Do you ever buy any comics that you do like?

I prefer the Beano to the attitude of certain members on this forum (which I thought I'd made more obvious).

Their attitude is probably a result of the way you make it seem perfectly clear that your opinions are definitive and not to be challenged, and that you appear to respect those of others not a jot, being very quick to dismiss them.

Thius new guy's appearance on the forum was much the same as how you arrived on here, being far more forthright and aggressive in your views than is the norm here. It is normal to respect the existing users of a forum and moderate your own manner oif communications in the light of that.

I don't have a problem with your opinions or your right to express them, Swirly, but you do come across as very rude at times, even in the way you refer to people who do not come to this forum, like the present or past editors of the beano, who you refer to peremptorily by their surname. These people are friends of this forum, even if they choose not to comment here, and I think it's a little disrespectful to identify them solely by their surnames in the way you do.

This is a friendly forum, and I suggest you keep your more (accidental, I'm sure) sneering tone for the "other" forum, where it fits in rather better, and is unlikely to put we lurking members off this fine forum which has always been well member-moderated. I myself at times have made remarks which were misinterpreted as sarcastic, and I was really annoyed with myself that I didn't take more time to ensure my posts were more easily understood by the regulars on here. A little more effort, and I think you'll find people will engage in a more open debate with you, which is what this place is all about, after all.

MikeC wrote:Their attitude is probably a result of the way you make it seem perfectly clear that your opinions are definitive and not to be challenged, and that you appear to respect those of others not a jot, being very quick to dismiss them.

Got it in a nutshell.

MikeC wrote:Their attitude is probably a result of the way you make it seem perfectly clear that your opinions are definitive and not to be challenged, and that you appear to respect those of others not a jot, being very quick to dismiss them.

Scoobie wrote:Got it in a nutshell.

Could you please clarify for us, Scoobie. Is your recent post accepting the accuracy of Mike C's interpretation of the possible reasons behind the attitude of some members towards you, or is it accepting that the apparent attitudes of the aforementioned members are an accurate assessment of your attitude towards them?

If I can clarify, my comment was aimed at swirlythingy, but more as a gentle reminder that, in a thread already defaced by poor taste not fitting with the general tone of this forum, sometimes the way you say things can be as important as what you say.

In no way was I sanctioning what Scoobie said, and if he felt I did, he wasn't reading closely enough.